• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

***Haswell -E Owners Thread***

Nobody should be running prime on HW-E. 30 minutes of Realbench is slightly unrealistic though, doesn't really stress cache at all or memory.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18645325

I've listed reasons for not running Prime here.

AMDMatt said:
Not a clue, I've really no interest in running lengthy unrealistic stress tests if the computer never crashes under general/benching/gaming usage - which is all i use this rig for.. I believe the overclock is stable though as gaming always produces a crash/freeze/bsod quicker than any stress test which sends core temps very high.
Click to expand...

Gaming isn't exactly CPU intensive. Everyone is entitled to use different methods to rattle out instablity, but when you are running the cpu cache and memory as close to the wall as you are, not running sensible lengths of recommended tests just makes life more difficult for you. You won't see most of the error correction going on in W8 as there is no WHEA reporting, it'll just crash after it's attempted multiple times. In short, most would assume given your voltages and CL you've slapped on that it probably isn't all that stable at all.

Nothing Nazi about this:

1 to 2 hours of AIDA CPU / Memory / Cache

400-600% in HCI Memtest Pro 16 instances with 85-90% memory


Realbench with 16Gb - 2 to 4 hours. If you can't pass at least 2 hours of RB you're definitely not stable.
 
Last edited:
I will run a longer real bench when i get a new cpu cooler. Looking at either a H110i GT or a Triton if OcuK ever get stock.

Currently trying to trim voltages down. Currently testing VCSSA at 0.850v and input at 1.825v.
 
Hi there,

I was wondering if anyone could help me with my dilemma with the Intel 5820K and 5930K.

Is it worth paying more for the 5930K as if I am to go X99 I would like my system to be pretty set for a few years or so.

I do have a tendency to use more than one graphics card and I know that the 5920K is a bit gimped with how many lanes it has. So would it be more wise to spend a little extra and get the 5930K instead?

:)
 
Combat Fighter said:
Hi there,

I was wondering if anyone could help me with my dilemma with the Intel 5820K and 5930K.

Is it worth paying more for the 5930K as if I am to go X99 I would like my system to be pretty set for a few years or so.

I do have a tendency to use more than one graphics card and I know that the 5920K is a bit gimped with how many lanes it has. So would it be more wise to spend a little extra and get the 5930K instead?

:)
Click to expand...

I think it only comes into play when using more than two cards....I myself will never go tri or quad sli...I would just get upgrade gfx....

In terms of the storage and the M.2 you'll be fine with the lanes of 5820k with 2x cards...
 
easyrider said:
I think it only comes into play when using more than two cards....I myself will never go tri or quad sli...I would just get upgrade gfx....

In terms of the storage and the M.2 you'll be fine with the lanes of 5820k with 2x cards...
Click to expand...

Only thing about the M.2 is you can't use that and raid (raid1 config in my case) together (correct me if I'm wrong!)?
 
Combat Fighter said:
Hi there,

I was wondering if anyone could help me with my dilemma with the Intel 5820K and 5930K.

Is it worth paying more for the 5930K as if I am to go X99 I would like my system to be pretty set for a few years or so.

I do have a tendency to use more than one graphics card and I know that the 5920K is a bit gimped with how many lanes it has. So would it be more wise to spend a little extra and get the 5930K instead?

:)
Click to expand...

http://techreport.com/review/27279/asus-x99-a-motherboard-reviewed
My understanding is that the 28/40 CPU lanes only need to be allocated for GPUs and M.2 (see url image)
so 28 is still enough for dual gpu and 4x m.2 16\8 + 4=28
leaving 8 southbridge lanes for other add in cards albeit @ PCIe 2 {as shown on the graphic}.
and 16/8 is within a margin of error in performance of 16/16.

of course this is for asus but i suspect other boards have cpu lanes and southbridge lanes.

of course if you had lots of add in cards, or cards that required PCIe 3.0 performance, it would need some consideration...but this i suspect is rare..
 
Im in (see sig) :D

Only problem ive got, is with my Xonar DX, doesn't work properly, and im on the 1004 BIOS, if i do the sound test in Windows (Win 7 Pro 64bit), say test the front left (ive got logitech x530 5.1 speakers btw), i'll either get the sound from the front left as normal, or it will come from one of the other speakers, or it won't come out of any (so no sound), that happens with them all when testing, and ill sometimes get one speaker that doesn't play sound at all, which seems to cycle round, i.e, if i start a music vid on YT, i may get say the rear right speaker with no sound coming out (but speaker is on, as can hear that hum you get), so i close the vid (by closing firefox down), start it back up again, and the rear right could be on this time, but say rear left (or another one), could be no sound.

Tried it in both PCI-E 1x slots, and even tried the Xonar Unified drivers (always used the officials), but it was worse on those ones, always had 2x speakers with no sound coming out with those.

There is a newer 1203 BIOS (came out just before Christmas i think), but ive not bothered to try it (just says improves stability), as im just using the onboard now, it works, and it sounds just as good as my Xonar did tbh. :p

Onboard sounds come a long way :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom